Marvin Hagler vs Roy Jones, Jr @ 160

Unbelievable fighter. Probably the most talented athlete to ever grace this sport, hell maybe just ever.

 

My question would be explain Leonard - Camacho Ray showed he could take it vs Hagler among others but he couldn’t take Camachos heat??? Hmmm

shot...

 

My view was always that Hearns would have beaten Roy at 160

 

yeah he was just ridiculous that’s why I found myself rooting against him I always root for the underdog unless I have a vested interest in the other fighter. I actually screamed in a friend of mine‘s face when Tarver iced him because he was a lifelong Jones fan and I was on cloud nine

 

Yes. Agreed, although Leonard was considerably more shot than Jones was. He had also retired several times by that point and was inactive. Jones was active. The better comparison would be the Enzo fight. Or if Jones was coming off a 6 year retirement before fighting Johnson.

 

Therefore your view is null and void. Jones can easily knock Hearns out with 1 punch at any time. He had a far better defence and was a far better at mid-close range

 

Indeed - that really just about sums up RJJ's approach to defense. However, there's more to defense than just quick reflexes. And, one boxer getting hit more often than another is not necessarily a measure of levels in defensive ability, when styles, tactics and the ability level of one's opposition are taken into consideration.

For example, if Hagler's strategy relies on closing the distance on RJJ then it is unlikely Hagler has much choice but to take a risk or three. At the same time, the use of a solid and accurate jab to disrupt an opponent, while setting up one's forward motion and mid-range armory, can reduce these risks, if not remove them entirely.

The trade-off for Hagler is worth it. He has taken some hits, but has delivered heavy artillery of his own. And, it's worth remembering that he was capable of taking this approach against dangerous punchers.

Jones was quite cavalier, for the most part; leaping in with his chin exposed when on the attack and back-pedaling with his arms wide open, when under attack. To my mind, RJJ is vulnerable in either of these situations and perhaps more so, in the case of the former, when he has committed to an assault.

That said, how many people at 160 did RJJ fight, who had both the style and ability to capitalize on this, i.e. press the openings in Roy's exposure on the back foot, as well as time a Jones without a guard, as he leapt in?

I think it's a bit of an overstatement to suggest that no one could hit RJJ. He could be hit; he did get hit. The real question is could Hagler hit him often enough and hard enough to change the shape of the fight, as the rounds wore on? I think he could.

 

I truly believe that Roy wouldn't have gone out like he did against Johnson, if it would have been a pre-HW version of him.

 

The only problem here is Hagler has issues with faster fighters. Yes-- he should have fought the way you described vs Leonard but didn't. Hagler gave guys too much respect. A flaw in his game. You can see the same thing vs Duran who was much smaller. Why did he do this? I say it's just who he was and despite being durable didn't like the take two to land one strategy.

Jones would be too quick for Marvin, and he hit harder than Leonard for Duran, so why would Hagler fight him differently, doing what he would need to do? There is a reason guys would not rush Jones. He was that fast, that accurate and hit hard.

There are still bunch of questions asked to you, if you want to answer them.

 

Hearns has the advantage in reach and height. I think it is more likely he catches Jones with his famous right hand when Roy moves in. But my bet would be a points win for Hearns, I see Roy fighting a cautious fight.

 

Roy was a smart guy.

If he'd have taken the fight, I have to believe that he'd have fought him aggressively.

You were playing into his hands if you contested a technical boxing match with him.

Guys like Benitez didn't have much choice. But Marvin, Ray, Barkley and Roy all possessed the firepower to have backed him up and hurt him.

A very difficult fight for Roy though.

 

I really do not think so.Roy is not the guy who will put up his hands and fight you aggressively like Hagler or Barkley.Different styles.Also Hagler and Iran good take a far better punch than Roy.

 

Using Hagler’s last fight, a year after he had already shown to be slow and cumbersome against Mugabi, as well as having been on the verge of retirement, is a poor benchmark, from which to gauge Hagler in any fantasy fight.

However, if we accept your assertion as something we can use; that Hagler couldn’t fight against Leonard, in the way suggested in my last post, then I would have to say that your assertion is wrong. Hagler did exactly that against Leonard and, in the eyes of more than just a few observers, deserved the decision. And, this was a lead-footed version of Hagler.

The “flaw in his game” theory seems to be based on two fights, which in itself is a very small percentage of Hagler’s ledger. One of these fights, as I have ready mentioned, was the very last in his career, after he’d slowed up and had already made clear that his heart wasn’t in the sport any more. The other is against a guy, who is widely regarded as a top-10 All-time Great, and the fact is that no one but Hagler knows why he fought Duran the way he did. But, in any event, Hagler won the fight clearly (regardless of the scorecards) and was able to impose himself on Duran at will, throughout the fight - including dominating Duran on the inside. No one had knocked Duran out before and I think this probably contributed towards Hagler’s plan and it became a tactical battle, which he overcame.

So, you have a theory, but it doesn’t hold up, in my opinion. Especially, when you consider how he went through Hearns, an opponent with advantages in physical stature (height and reach), as well as speed, and who was a more dangerous puncher than either Duran or Leonard and probably the middleweight version of RJJ, for that matter.

I'd say Hearns was as capable of controlling the distance between himself and Hagler - as Jones is likely to have been; perhaps, even more so. Hagler knew this. He knew he had to get inside and cut Hearns down and it's also worth noting that Hagler was probably past his best when he faced Hearns.

If this alleged flaw was “just who [Hagler] was” then why come out the way he did against Hearns? Indeed, why wasn’t this supposed "flaw" unearthed much earlier in the career of Hagler, a boxer who aggressively stalked all of this opponents in order to achieve his aims.

You’re as entitled to your opinion as the next man, but I see no pattern upon which to establish a definitive defect in Hagler’s approach to boxing matches. I see no standout similarities between the ways in which Hagler fought his fights against Duran, Hearns or Leonard.

In Hagler/RJJ, at 160, the former is going into a fight knowing that the latter is faster and that he is likely going to want to control the space between them and has slight edges in physical stature. Thus, common sense would dictate that Hagler is going to have to try and make it a smaller ring and keep it close.

Not only do I think Hagler would know what he had to do, in advance, but I think a prime Hagler is able to execute his plan and force fair periods of the fight to be contested at close range, because this is where he can win. After all, even a past prime Hagler proved he could go into fights with different game plans for certain fighters, as well as demonstrate versatility mid-fight.

 

Roy was mostly happy to box, but he could fight aggressively if he felt the need to.

Like I said: 'IF' he'd have taken the fight.

Trying to outbox a great boxer who's bigger than you is a bad game plan for anybody to employ.

Anybody who knew Tommy or knew of his career after the Leonard fight knew that he was very vulnerable. Which is why Marvin went straight for him, yet he had a technical boxing match against Duran.

Again, Roy was very smart. So he'd either have swerved the fight or fought like he did against the likes of Griffin and Hill.

 

We're still waiting on those answers.